It’s really blatant and remarkable and thank God they were watching, because this sort of misrepresentation is simply not an accident.

Evidence?

“When somebody comes to you, as a journalist, for information and allows you to control their field of vision, it’s expected that you’ll turn your lens on the truth. Not an augmented or altered version of the truth.”

Yeah, you can expect that… but anyone who has watched ANY of the news networks knows that too much trust, and you’ll eventually get burned.

As for this story… I want to see more. I want to know what Hannity has to say. Did Stewart “humorously” edit out content that would have explained things… or did Hannity really screw up big time? If Hannity screwed up, he needs to issue a big correction… but I’m not prepared to simply take the word of Stewart, without other corroboration.

“Corroboration.”
Try that brain that apparently is attached to a lower extremity.

Pardon?

Come on Rachael,

Are you really that stupid? I am sure that Fox made sure to take a “B” roll with entirely new people and signs for future rallies. A 1st grader can see that although the camera angles are similar (Hannity’s camera is about 50m closer to the building it looks like) they have completely different people.

Stewart, I would like to know why there are different people with different signs in the two shots. It’s a Fox News Conspiracy! It must be!

Mr. ImNotBlue apparently only sets his critical eye to MSM and not Fox News or Hannity, in this case. Unless there was some weird weather phenomenon in Washington last week, Hannity’s lying was indeed blatant. You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, to quote Dylan. Hannity even remarked about the crowd in the VIDEO as if that was the crowd on Thursday. Give it up, ImNotBlue, he was busted just like Fox News is always busted for lying and distorting.

@ImNotBlue

Actually, that is the exact footage. I saw it when it ran. I do find it entertaining that you require “evidence” or proof from the comedian but not from the news network.

That said, keep in mind that as a pundit, Hannity is not bound by the same rules as a reporter. This does not excuse what looks like an intentional edit for drama deal by Hannity and company. However, as a pundit, he has a lot of flexibility. Keep in mind that it is Hannity’s credibility that Hannity must decide on.

@Rachel Sklar

“Thank God they were watching.”

Yeah – the comedian was watching. All of the actual journalists and pundits like yourself totally missed this one because you were too tied up in ideological blather to notice the glaringly obvious. If Stewart had not caught it, neither would you. I suggest you climb off of that ridiculously high horse of yours and admit that you missed it just like everyone else.

@germ

Hello! Sky, trees, leaves. There is no conspiracy here. Just sloppy work and misleading footage…by a PUNDIT. If a reporter had done this, then they would be in the same boat as the news producer who was whipping up the crowd for the camera. Again, (repeat after me) Hannity is a pundit. He makes no claim of journalism. As much as I dislike all pundits on all sides, I have to give Hannity points for always making that clear.

Sometimes it is exactly what it look like – adding footage to beef up the visual. Does Hannity “owe” an explanation? Not really. It is his show and Fox’s network. The First Amendment covers them on this.

Final comment on this – add this to the ever growing list of dishonesties, misrepresentations, exaggerations and flat out nonsense coming from BOTH sides. The good news? We live in a country that allows free speech and a free press.

I wonder how come both Jon Stewart and Mediate both missed the story about CNN misquoting the Ft. Hood Private to Cast Doubt on Cries of ‘Allahu Akbar’ — oh well. That doesn’t excuse what Hannity did, if true (I haven’t looked at the video yet). None-the-less, lets watch all the networks, and call them all out, or don’t call any of them out.

@ Keeva

So you don’t mind when Hannity and other pundits lie to you, to sell their opinion? It was lying, not sloppy work. Every tape and video clip is cataloged as to time and date and even has time code embedded. The producers put in these video clips and did not tell the audience they were from 9/12. The producers labeled the video as coming from the Bachmann rally. Yes free speech does exist in this country, apparently Fox News is allowed to lie to their audience and other media outlets are free to point out their lies.

DWHarper says:
November 11, 2009 at 12:02 pm

Try reading what I wrote again. If Hannity screwed this up, and it is as Stewart says… they Hannity owes a very big correction and apology. That’s completely and totally unacceptable. However, Stewart is a comedian… not a news man… and has been known to fudge the facts a bit (and admit as much) for the sake of a laugh. I want to see someone with a little more credibility than Jon Stewart approach this. I know, I know… if it’s negative against FOX or Republicans, it must be correct… but I don’t live in your warped world (of which you still have not corrected or responded to your lies which I pointed out), here in the real world, things don’t work that way. Sorry.

Keeva says:
November 11, 2009 at 12:09 pm

Well, that’s not what I said, now is it? I said that Hannity needs to address this… the ball is in his court, and if Stewart is correct, Hannity better correct the record. If Stewart is not correct, Hannity needs to call him out. Someone other than the comedian, someone with more credibility, making the claim would help Stewart’s argument. Thus far, the only person talking about this is Stewart… and everyone else is talking about Stewart talking about it. Even Mediaite hasn’t done any original research into this, only reposted Stewart’s original claim. That’s lazy journalism at best.

As for your second post, I half agree… but only the half that does not excuse this. This is a big breach of trust, and if Hannity actively manipulated the video information to promote or prove his POV, that’s unacceptable… even for a pundit. I know for some, this type of stuff is acceptable from an Olbermann or a Maddow… but not from a Hannity or O’Reilly. Well, IMO, it’s not acceptable for any of them… and Hannity better explain himself.

Hannity, the intractable ideologue, deserves all the scorn directed at him for pulling crappola like this. His audience, however, will not care one iota about the deceit. These folks live in their own reality.

I must say, I don’t know what the weather or trees look like right now in DC.

If Hannity did lie he better retract it. I already flip over Maddow for the first half of his show (I find the panel the second half of the show entertaining). If he doesn’t retract this, then I will stop watching his show all together.

Look at 2:00 it is the exact same footage. Crazy! Look at the yellow sign and the big American flag, it is the same shot from a different angle. Look at the blue-red-blue banner in the upper left-hand corner. Same banner different angle.

The sad thing about this is that there are people who will blindly follow a person like Hannity and dismiss this. It is like a woman who is in denial after she catches her husband cheating. “He has lipstick on his shirt, missing his underwear, and he smells like sex but that doesn’t mean he did anything.”

WOW is all I have to say… WOW!

News uses raw footage. Been in the news rooms for a few years with CNN. It was done all the time.This is nothing new to fill video spots. Just like when they do a story about fat people or crime its footage that was shot before and put in the report. There was not enough footage and instead of looping the video … an editor grabbed old footage.
It is not Hannity fault and he would have not noticed. NOT A BIG DEAL! DONE ON ALL NETWORKS!

Those sly Fox-es knew back in Sept that they would re-use the footage. So they brought along extra signs and handed them out to the participants in order to create the illusion of different events. They also moved the sun in the sky in order to make the lighting look different.

What those devils at Fox won’t do to pursue their evil agenda!

ImNotBlue says:
November 11, 2009 at 12:22 pm

I will eat my shoe if you see a correction on Hannity’s show. There is no possible way that will happen. Never and you know that, ImNotBlue. And the reporting has already been done by a COMEDY SHOW. All other media is pointing to THE DAILY SHOW”S REPORTING because there is no defense for Hannity on this one. No second source needed because it is self evident in the clips shown on Hannity.
As for the “warped reality” you speak of. Let’s guess which is a warped reality. That which is presented by ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, BBC and 77 percent of the population or that which is presented by Fox News and a gullible 23 percent of the population? That answer is also self-evident.

hkyplayer says:
November 11, 2009 at 1:52 pm

“News uses raw footage”

Of course, all news networks use B roll footage and clips to fill space. But this is a clip labeled on the screen “Earlier” meaning earlier in the day when the rally happened. That is lying not effective use of B roll.

hkyplayer says:
November 11, 2009 at 1:52 pm

That might be an acceptable defense… if it weren’t for the fact that Hannity appears to have been talking about the video. If he talked about the video, he was presenting it as “new” video… and that’s unacceptable.

DWHarper says:
November 11, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I will eat my shoe if you see a correction on Hannity’s show. There is no possible way that will happen. Never and you know that, ImNotBlue.
You seem to be confusing Hannity with someone like Maddow… who doesn’t issue corrections, only non-apologies (see her non-apology for lying about Limbaugh). I wouldn’t be surprised to see it… I will also won’t be surprised when you run away after it airs.
No second source needed because it is self evident in the clips shown on Hannity.
Do you know anything about journalism at all? Just because Stewart presented the clips in a certain way, it does not mean that’s how it happened. Stewart has been caught editing clips before (especially when it comes to FNC), and defends it as just trying to “get a laugh.” That’s why other outlets need to review the unedited clips from Hannity’s program, and provide a complete transcript. YOU may be willing to trust a comedy show as a news source… but the adults don’t.

As for the “warped reality” you speak of.

The “warped reality” that means Republicans are ALWAYS bad… you know, the reality you live in. The country is 50/50, and there are dopes on both sides of aisle. You only see wrong and take offense when it’s against one of “your guys.” That’s the “warped reality” we’re talking about… who knows what you were trying to say in that last paragraph.

Hannity deliberately misrepresented the size of Bachman’s rally, plain and simple. it’s what happens with a propaganda network.

If you are as outraged about this as I am, I strongly encourage you to file a complaint to the FCC here:
http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm

The appropriate Complaint Type is “Broadcast (TV and Radio), Cable, and Satellite Issues” and the Complaint Category is “Unauthorized, unfair, biased, illegal broadcasts” (the form states that this includes “Biased or distorted news stories by the media”). The original show aired on Fox News at 9:00 pm Eastern on November 11th 2009.

We have an avenue to correct this type of falsification and to make change we must make a complaint.

Correction: it was the November 5th show.

ImNotBlue says,
“That’s why other outlets need to review the unedited clips from Hannity’s program, and provide a complete transcript. YOU may be willing to trust a comedy show as a news source… but the adults don’t.”

That’s the whole stupidity of this, a COMEDY SHOW points this out before any other media watchdog group. Media Matters uses TDS clips because they are not doctored. Hannity’s and Bachmann’s voices are heard with the “earlier” graphic and Fox News chyron on the screen with clear video clips of the 9/12 rally. No manipulation, just blatant lying by the Hannity show. Of course, they did throw in the Woodstock and 300 footage but that was indeed satire and meant to be funny commenting about the earlier truth they revealed.

And also to ImNotBlue…

The political media bias arguments should not be about right or left but rather about right or wrong. It just so happens that the saying “Truth has a liberal bias” comes from the nugget of truth within the statement.

>>It just so happens that the saying “Truth has a liberal bias”

Honestly, that is the first time I have ever heard that saying, and after doing a Google search for it, the only origin I have seen is from Stephen Colbert. Now, I doubt that is where the saying originated, but the point still stands. That is an assinine comment, because the TRUTH should have no bias.

ImNotBlue says:
November 11, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Just because Stewart presented the clips in a certain way, it does not mean that’s how it happened.

Here is the original video from Hannity’s show on foxnews.com:
http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/27277721/house-call-on-washington.htm#q=bachmann+hannity

The Daily Show presented it the way it was aired on Hannity. The only editing done by them was to put the video side by side with footage from Glenn Beck’s show.

“I will eat my shoe if you see a correction on Hannity’s show.”

They’ve already announced they are going to reply to Stewart tonite. I’d say the chances are 10-1 that it will be a correction rather than a debunking. So I hope you have lots of ketchup ready for those loafers.

“I strongly encourage you to file a complaint to the FCC here”

Sorry, pal. The FCC has no jurisdiction over the content of cable television broadcasts. There are no cable news channel licenses for it to review or revoke. Your complaint will do nothing more than clog up the FCC in boxes and cause them to waste time on things they actually have control over.

How utterly unsurprising, another Fox mouthpiece exagerating on behalf of one of the causes they pushed and pushed and on their own network.

The last time it was the 72,000 tea partiers who magically became 1.5-2 million. Liars.

@ ImNotBlue

You are correct. That is not what you said. My misread on it.

As far as the lies being acceptable – no, they are not. However, I do not look to pundits for facts or honesty. It is indeed a huge breech of trust – with his fans and followers. I am not one of those, so I just see it as more political theater played out for the kids.

@hkyplayer

In general, that is accurate, but remember that Dan Rather paid for staff excesses. Done all the time is no excuse. As far as who is responsible, I go with the “name on the door” rule. Hannity’s name is on the door, he is responsible for the show. Period.

@THEMEDIA

This assumes that one regards Hannity yakking it up with Bachman as news. It is not news, and again, as I noted earlier, Hannity is very up front about his being a pundit. Also, note that while there is a place to complain, short of actual libel or slander, this is simply protected speech.

@felixw

A little too much conspiracy thinking there.

@JimR

As if MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and the rest don’t make stuff up all the time. Seriously. Fox is just another media outlet playing the exact same game as the rest of them.

Here is a great example. This weekend The Weather Channel went into hyper overdrive with Tropical Storm/Hurricane/Tropical Storm Ida. Phrases like “major hurricane,” “floods in New Orleans,” and the like were as common as commercials on TWC. When the storm approached, there are Stephanie Abrams and Jim Cantore on the beaches of the Gulf Coast, all dressed up in total foul weather gear, ranting like the world will end any second. Behind the screeching Stephanie Abrams are people jogging on the beach in shorts and T-shirts while she is in her foul weather gear, all zipped up as if she was on board the USS Caine. Well, the truth was that when she did that report it was sunny and mild out. However, that did not fit TWC’s hype. They faked it so Abrams could get her “on the beach in the storm” shot.

That is exactly what happened on Hannity. They needed to dramatize and they did. It is wrong, and unethical.

I want to see how Hannity covers this one. Keep in mind that as a pundit, he is in no way obligated to be honest.

THEMEDIA says:
November 11, 2009 at 2:34 pm

Yeah… good luck with that.

DWHarper says:
November 11, 2009 at 3:19 pm

…a COMEDY SHOW points this out before any other media watchdog group.

It’s amazing isn’t it? I guess the rest of the media was too focused on THEIR OWN PROGRAMS, to spend all their time watching FOX.

Media Matters uses TDS clips because they are not doctored.

MM doctors clips too (and has been caught as such)… so taking TDS doctored clips and running with them is nothing special.

No manipulation,

So you’ve seen the non-TDS version of the segment?

The political media bias arguments should not be about right or left but rather about right or wrong.

Uh-oh, a moment of clarity escapes through DW’s crazy… but…

It just so happens that the saying “Truth has a liberal bias” comes from the nugget of truth within the statement.

OH! There’s the crazy back in full force! Yes, the only “truth” is the stuff biased from the left. Just as Maddow “told the truth,” even though she (and about a billion other media outlets) retold the Limbaugh lie… and then refused to correct or apologies for it… they still “tell the truth.” Yeah… right.

The problem is, you (and people like you) can’t differentiate between “opinion” and “fact.” If it agrees with your “opinion,” then it must be “fact,” because multiple people think the same way. That’s not a “fact,” that’s just a shared opinion by certain people. There’s a difference… look it up.

Rein says:
November 11, 2009 at 4:05 pm

GOOD! Finally, someone starting to do some original research beyond repeating what TDS has said.

Keeva says:
November 11, 2009 at 5:46 pm
However, I do not look to pundits for facts or honesty.

I think we have an expectation of facts when it comes to pundits… they may be “convenient facts” or “supportive facts,” but facts non-the-less. As for honesty, I think we should be able to expect that as well… just because you’re pro- or con- something, doesn’t mean you have the right to lie or deceive. An omission of fact is different than changing the truth to fit your spin.

@johnny dollar:
If the FCC has no jurisdiction of cable then why does the complaint form have a category for “Broadcast (TV and Radio), Cable, and Satellite Issues”?

I would just add FWIW that Fox just won a round in court allowing them to lie, via a ruling in the lawsuit brought by the documentarians that refused to slant their program the way Rupert and Roger wanted it; they were summarily fired.

The court made no distinction between Fox “pundits” or “news programs” which is good news for McCain and Republicans.

The only recourse in a democracy is mockery, which Jon Stewart does an admirable job of, and at the voting booth in favor of the party whose water is not being carried daily by a supposed news organization.

FCC does have jurisdiction over local cable systems regarding technical and operational details, and even to a small extent over their LOCAL programming (public access channels, equal time etc). But that’s your local Comcast cable system. That does not apply to national cable channels, be they news or entertainment. While the FCC can fine broadcast stations for a dirty word, or take away your local channel 4 license if they behave badly enough, they have no jurisdiction or authority–none whatsoever–over what a cable news station like FNC, or TV Land or HBO, airs. Complaints along that line are usually met with a form reply, but when someone with authority reads them, they are discarded. This is nothing new. It’s been this way for a long time. The FCC WANTS to stick its nose into cable channel programming content, but as of now they can’t.

“I would just add FWIW that Fox just won a round in court allowing them to lie”

That case didn’t just happen. It occurred years ago. It involved a local station that was a Fox affiliate, not FNC. The decision turned on several complicated legal arguments over FCC policies, rules, and definitions. The court didn’t rule on ‘allowing them to lie’ because there was no issue in the case regarding ‘lying’, so the court was obviously never asked the rule on an issue that wasn’t a part of the case. The losers immediately claimed exactly what you said, but while this claim is frequently repeated, it never seems to be accompanied with the language from the court telling Fox hey, you have permission to lie. Because it ain’t there.

I’mNotBlue, I have already caught you in this particular lie about Media Matters doctoring footage several times before. Either provide proof for this claim or stand exposed once again as a Fox-fluffing liar and all-around loser.

I’ll be waiting.

@ImNotBlue

“I think we have an expectation of facts when it comes to pundits… they may be “convenient facts” or “supportive facts,” but facts non-the-less. As for honesty, I think we should be able to expect that as well… just because you’re pro- or con- something, doesn’t mean you have the right to lie or deceive. An omission of fact is different than changing the truth to fit your spin.”

There is only an expectation of facts from those pundits one sides with. The other side is always making it up, doctoring it or faking it. Actually, they do have the right to lie and deceive. It is freedom of speech, not freedom of true speech. When they do lie or deceive, the only place they can be “punished” is in their credibility.

As I keep pointing out, both sides engage in lots of creative writing.

Hey, johnny dollar, nice try,

“Here’s the rundown: On August 18, 2000, journalist Jane Akre won $425,000 in a court ruling where she charged she was pressured by Fox News management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.”

“The real information: she found out cows in Florida were being injected with RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce milk – and, according to FDA-redacted studies, unintentionally designed to make human beings produce cancer.”

“Fox lawyers, under pressure by the Monsanto Corporation (who produced RBGH), rewrote her report over 80 times to make it compatible with the company’s requests. She and her husband, journalist Steve Wilson, refused to air the edited segment.”

“In February 2003, Fox appealed the decision and an appellate court and had it overturned. Fox lawyers argued it was their first amendment right to report false information. In a six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals decided the FCC’s position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a “law, rule, or regulation.”

Or this,

“The court did not dispute the heart of Akre’s claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.”

“The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.”

Read that last paragraph twice, please.

They lie on purpose in their so-called news programs, forget the fantasies peddled by the demagogues on the opinion shows, and everyone knows it. And no, there’s no credible comparison to any other network.

Thanks for playing, though.

Jim R, you are just repeating what someone else wrote about the court’s ruling. Did you read the court’s ruling? I did.

False information? The Washington Post did a review of their claims about RBGH and concluded there was no merit to them. So much for that. III. The editing that Wilson and Akre refused to allow? The station wanted Monsanto’s point of view on the story included in the report. They refused. They claim that they rewrote the report 80 times? When they added a few words to each of the four parts of the series, they counted that as four rewrites. What’s more, after their contract wasn’t renewed, another reporter went ahead and reported the story, including Monsanto’s response to the charges. The Columbia Journalism Review examined this report and determined it to be “hardly any difference in substance” from the Wilson/Akre version. But Wilson didn’t take kindly to someone else doing the report, and threatened the reporter that he (Wilson) would denounce the report as “lies” if he dared to air it.

The court didn’t dispute Akre’s claim? Neither did they affirm it. Because it wasn’t an issue before them! Appellate courts rarely decide issues of facts anyhow, though that didn’t prevent the anonymous whoever that you cut-and-pasted from suggesting that they do. Apellate courts decide issues of law, not questions of fact. The court’s decision was based on who constitutes a ‘whistleblower’ and whether a particular rule was ‘adopted’ or put in place by an ‘adjudicative procedure’. You neglected to mention that Akre and Wilson argued that they had no obligation to prove that ‘news distortion’ actually occurred. They insisted that they only had to ‘believe’ it could occur.

I can read your paragraphs twice, three times, or four but that doesn’t make them correct. And putting quote marks around them doesn’t invest them with additional credibility. The court ruling makes no mention whatsoever of the “first amendment” or lying or a right to lie. You’re just rehashing someone else’s partisan, and inaccurate, spin.

Again, did you read the court decision? I did. So I know what it said. I don’t rely on third parties to do my thinking for me, and I certainly wouldn’t turn to aggrieved third-parties with axes to grind to characterize the rulings of a court, when the court’s own words are the only thing that matters. Why don’t you go read the court’s ruling? There’s no point in discussing this if you are just going to parrot someone else’s spin without getting the facts from the only source that matters: the ruling of the court..

You’re welcome, though.

DWHarper says:
November 11, 2009 at 1:54 pm

I will eat my shoe if you see a correction on Hannity’s show.

I bet ketchup makes it go down easier.

Oh, and I want pictures… before, during, and after. Enjoy the Buster Browns!

Jelperman says:
November 11, 2009 at 7:28 pm

Well, I’ve already proved this… but if you want ANOTHER example, sure… why not.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/19/media-matters-dishonest-editing-in-support-of-their-smear-argument-exposed/

In this clip, Media Matters crops out something Glenn Beck said, so they can accuse him of not actually saying it. Transcript AND video for you to watch! Boy, that wasn’t hard to find at all… WTG Google.

Keeva says:
November 11, 2009 at 8:43 pm

Yes, they have the “right” to lie, as in legally… but not the “right” to lie, as in ability to do so without criticism, critique, or shame. Perhaps I used the wrong word to say what I was trying to say… or at least a word to similar to another relevant word.

Anyway… I agree that “facts” are noticed (often when someone doesn’t know the difference between fact and opinion) when you agree with the person, versus “lies” when you don’t. But I’m talking about real facts being used to support an argument… but only facts that are supportive of one’s cause. For example, Keith Olbermann may use a study that says “X% of the public are for Obamacare,” while Hannity might say that “Y% of the public think congress is doing a poor job.” Both “facts” may be true, but there is surely more to it than the information they’re presenting. They’re giving “friendly facts” to support their opinions… but it doesn’t mean the “facts” are untrue.

As I keep pointing out, both sides engage in lots of creative writing.

We are in agreement on that fact… ;)

johnny dollar says:
November 11, 2009 at 9:55 pm

Who knew being lawyer could come in so handy?!

Johny dollar, I see what you’re saying now that I’ve read the decision, but you interpret the overall case as narrowly as the court, imho.

The court ruled the FCC “rule” didn’t rise to the level of law as defined in the whistle blower statute and therefore overturned the case. It takes nothing away from the facts of the case, the original jury ruling, or in particular the case presented by Fox News attorneys, not affiliate attorneys.

I’ll continue reading about this case, being justifiably admonished and curious, but the preponderance of analysis I’ve seen so far says that the attorneys defense was that the FCC rule against lying wasn’t a law, and the court concurred.

On the other hand, I’m sure Fox isn’t the only media outlet that has backed off of investigative reports that would adversely impact the bottom line, like when a corporate behemoth starts complaining.

Fair enough. Just remember the original jury ruling (who incongruously ruled against Wilson and for Akre) was based on the premise not that there WAS news distortion, but that Akre BELIEVED there could be news distortion. So even there, the jury didn’t find actual ‘lying’, but rather her belief. It’s a complex case, from start to finish, and doesn’t take well to simple explanations. Which is why lawyers love that sort of stuff! ;)

Hello,hi cos I so much like your unique article, I would feel very special if you would like to me write a review on your amazing site on my small Site would you say yes?

Best regards, John Peds
Author of how to cook salmon

Fox fair and balanced and made up. This happens over and over and the stupid sheep love it. Long live the lies!

This is 1 of the better blogs in the area of educational activity. If I don’t came in for a couple of days, there are so many posts that it’ll lead me a couple of hours just to go over whatever I missed!! Extolment.

Thanks. great great info. here keep up Culinary Skills Egg Salad Recipe French Onion Soup Recipe the great work. I cannot really lead a more creative commentary as i’m abit out of my deph but i will be checking back here for further updates.